key-findings-from-report-on-social-connections-and-loneliness-in-oecd-countries-16-october-2025.pdf

The WISE Centre launched its report Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. Building on the OECD’s flagship well-being publication How’s Life?, this is the first international report to provide a comprehensive comparative assessment of the state of social connections across OECD countries. Discover the key findings from the report and learn about why social connections are so important.

1. Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries
A report from the WISE Centre
CENTRE ON WELL-BEING, INCLUSION,
SUSTAINABILITY AND EQUAL
OPPORTUNITY (WISE)
Key Findings

2. A fulfilling social life is vital for broader well-being, and the
costs of disconnection are high
Social connections cover the ways people interact with and relate to one another
Time spent socialising / alone │ Type of social contact │ Network composition
Quantity
Social support │ Loneliness │ Relationship satisfactionQuality
Loneliness and isolation are
associated with …
Poor health,
premature mortality
Lower productivity,
unemployment
Higher drop out
rate
Shapes voting
behaviours
Better health, happier and satisfied
Job satisfaction, creativity
Better academic performance
Job opportunities, less
crime, disaster response
Supportive networks and strong
social ties are associated with …

3. Growing understanding that policy plays a role in shaping the
conditions that encourage connection
National policies and
programmes
International measurement
and policy efforts
Spanish Ministry of Social Rights &
Agenda 2030 forthcoming national
strategy
Platform Against Loneliness in Austria
Denmark National Partnership
Against Loneliness
Finnish Parliamentary Working Group
on Strengthening Inclusion and
Reducing Loneliness
German Strategy against
Loneliness
Japanese Minister for Social
Isolation and Loneliness
Responding to Social Isolation and
Loneliness across the Life Course
in Korea
Lithuanian initiatives to support
social connections of the elderly
Netherlands Loneliness
Programme
Sweden Standing together – A
national strategy to tackle
loneliness
United Kingdom Minister for
Loneliness and national strategy
Social connections integrated in mental
health or well-being initiatives
United Nations Friends of the
Chair Group on Social and
Demographic Statistics (UN -
FOCG-SD), Institutions and
Relationships Measurement
Framework

4. What does the report do?
•Most complete picture of the state of social
connections across OECD countries, covering
their quantity and quality
•Collate data from high quality, large sample
size datasets
•Explore short- and medium- term trends
•Disaggregate outcomes by population group to
identify who is most vulnerable

5. Key findings in brief
•Social connections are strong for most people in OECD countries, but
deprivations remain
•Over the past decades, in-person socialising declined while remote
connection with friends and family via digital technology increased
•There are signs that the quality of connection has declined recently,
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
•Men and young people have emerged as new at-risk groups
•Older people, those who live alone, and those with fewer socio-
economic resources are also more at risk for disconnection
•Many interventions target lonely individuals – can community-level
solutions work better?

6. Social connections are strong in OECD countries, although
deprivations remain
95% of respondents in 38 OECD
countries interacted with friends or
family who live nearby over the past week
90% of respondents in 38 OECD
countries have someone to count on in
times of need
51% of respondents in 21 European
OECD countries never felt lonely over
the past 4 weeks
10% of people in 38 OECD
countries feel unsupported by
others
8% of respondents in 22 European
OECD countries report having no
close friends
6% of respondents in 23 OECD
countries felt lonely most or all of
the time over the past 4 weeks
Note: Data refer to 2022 or closest year. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries
. OECD Publishing, Paris.

7. People socialise in-person less often than before, but are
frequently in touch with friends and family via digital technology
Get together with friends or family in
person at least daily in an average year,
OECD EU-EFTA 21
Contact friends or family remotely at
least daily in an average year,
OECD EU-EFTA 21
Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries
. OECD Publishing, Paris.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2006 2015 2022
Family Friends
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2006 2015 2022
Family Friends

8. The quality of connection may have worsened in recent years, in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
Note: *To ensure sufficiently large sample sizes, for “no one to count on” 2022 refers to a pooled average of 2022-23 and 2018 refers to a pooled average of 2017-19. Source: OECD (2025),
Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries
. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Have no one to count on* (OECD 38) and
dissatisfied with relationships (OECD EU-EFTA 22)
Frequency of feeling lonely over the past four
weeks (OECD EU-EFTA 22)
0%
5%
10%
15%
2018 2022
Dissatisfied with relationships
No one to count on
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
All of
the
time
Most of
the
time
Some
of the
time
A little
of the
time
None
of the
time
2022 2018

9. Recent years have seen the emergence of newly vulnerable
groups, including younger men
Percentage point change 2015
to 2022, get together with
friends daily in an average
year, OECD EU-EFTA 21
Percentage point change 2018
to 2022, felt lonely most or all
of the time over the past 4
weeks, OECD EU-EFTA 22
Percentage point change 2018
to 2022, dissatisfied with
personal relationships,
OECD EU-EFTA 22
Note: Bars with striped pattern fill indicate that the percentage point change over time is not statistically significant. All other differences are significant. Source: OECD (2025),
Social
Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries. OECD Publishing, Paris.
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
16 to 2425 to 4960 to 6465+
Men Women
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
16 to 2425 to 4960 to 6465+
Men Women
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
16 to 2425 to 4960 to 6465+
Men Women

10. Older people, those who live alone, and those with fewer socio-
economic resources are also more at risk for disconnection
Note: The figure depicts the ratio of the population group outcome compared to the total population average outcome, for each of four selected social connections outcomes. Latest
available year refers to 2022 aside from “no one to count on” which refers to a pooled average of 2022-23 for education, income and live alone outcomes; and a pooled average of 2017-23 for
age and education outcomes. Source: OECD (2025), Social Connections and Loneliness in OECD Countries
. OECD Publishing, Paris.
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Older peopleLower education Low income Unemployed Live alone
Never get together with friends Lonely
No one to count on Dissatisfied with personal relationships
Better outcomes than total population average
Worse outcomes than total population average

11. Policy can plan a role in shaping the environmental factors that
promote connection, but important questions remain
•Effective policies involve the upstream factors
that shape opportunities to connect with one
another
•Role of the built environment and public social
spaces all the more important in the face of
demographic transitions: aging populations,
more people living alone, and our social lives
increasingly moving online
•Limited evidence base on effective policy interventions
•Move from (lonely or disconnected) individual- targeting programmes to
community-level interventions
•Better and more consistent measurement can help fill evidence gaps

12. The role of social infrastructure – physical spaces that lower the
barrier to interactions – in promoting connection

13. Better understanding how digital technology affects the quality
of social interactions
•Which types of digital technology use matter most for
social connections?
•Active communication | active participation and creation |
passive interactions
•Does the shift from real world to digital interactions
matter for the quality of connection?
•Tailored measurement linking how we socialise to our
moods and affective states can shed light on this question
•How effective are efforts to regulate young people’s use of social media and digital
devices, in terms of promoting positive online interactions?
•Expand outcomes considered beyond cognition, attention, academic performance to include assessments of social connection

14. The Centre on Well-being, Inclusion,
Sustainability and Equal Opportunity
(WISE):
https://www.oecd.org/wise/

Subscribe to our newsletter: https://oe.cd/wellbeingnews

Contact us: [email protected]
Find out more